Tke.  pwr 

5 £ C CS  5 i oro. 


Return  this  book  on  or  before  the 
Latest  Date  stamped  below. 


PRINTED  FOR  PERSONAL  FRIENDS. 


TH  E 

POLITICAL  RIGHT 


OF 


SECESSION : 


A 


K li;  S K Yi  V.  13  P*  O AV  E I^ 


ICNDER  TIIK 


CONSTITUTION. 


NEW  YORK. 


] 8G2. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/politicalrightofOOunse 


I 


P75 


I 

i SECESSION. 


Secession,  though  often  confounded  with,  is  not 
Nuliification.  It  was  the  doctrine  of  the  latter, 
that  a State  in  the  Union  had  the  reserved  power  to 
nullify  within  her  own  borders,  the  operation  of  a 
law  of  Congress  which  she  adjudged  to  he  uncon- 
stitutional. The  doctrine  of  Secession  is,  that  a 
State  is  bound  to  obey  all  Constitutional  laws  ol‘ 
Congress  while  in  the  Union  ; but  has  the  reserved 
power  to  secede  from  it,  when  moved  thereto  of  her 
own  volition.  The  exercise  of  the  power,  presup- 
poses an  adequate  cause  : of  that,  she,  from  the  na- 
ture of  the  case,  is  the  sole  judge.  Federal  legisla- 
tion,  so  unscrupulous  as  to  foster  and  protect  the 
^material  interests  of  other  States  by  measures  mani- 
Siestly  adverse  and  injurious  to  her  oavu — persisted 
-:in:  or,  the  amity  of  other  States  superseded  by 
U hate,  so  virulent  as  to  regard  with  complacency, 
y ruffianly  raids  upon  the  lives  and  property  of  her 
people  : or,  sentiments,  repugnant  to  and  repi'oach- 
ful  of  them,  adopted  by  such  numbers  as  to  dictate 
laws  of  Federal  and  State  legislation,  hostile  to 
V and  subversive  of  her  Institutions-  would,  doulh- 
^ less,  be  a cause  lor  seceding  from  a compact  with 
States  which  thus  repudiate  the  veiy  desideiata, 
guaranteed  l)y  the  Union  : namely,  “To  es'I'abltsh 

JUSTICE,  ENSURE  DOMESTIC  TRANQUILITY  AND  ITJOMOTE 
THE  GENERAL  WELFARE.’’  Sucli  we  Understand  to 


4 


AX  KX  POSITION  OF  SI-X’KSSIOX. 


he  the  theory,  and  siieh  tlie  causes  of  iiractical  Se- 
cession. We  do  not  now  pause  to  eiupiire  whetliei’ 
tile  States  coin])osin<>'  the  Southern  Confederacs' 
had  just  cause  for  seceding-,  nor  if  they  had, 
whether  it  was  expedient.  The  ipiestion  is,  had 
they  tlie  reserved  power  and  ri^ht  to  do  this.  It 
does  not  hecoine  us  holdly  to  assert  they  had,  in 
the  face  of'  all  that  has  been  spoken  and  written 
to  the  contrary  ; hut  this  we  may  atlirin,  that  no 
writer,  within  our  knowledoe,  has  attem[)ted  to 
disprove  the  right  lay  reference  to  liistorical  facts, 
or  l)y  logical  deductions  from  established  premises. 
They,  one  and  all,  assume  its  non-existence,  and 
from  such  assumption  ai'gue  their  conclusions  ; 
for,  sav  thev,  in  the  language  of  one  of  the  most 
eminent  of  them,*  ‘‘  Concede  this,  and  we  have 
no  Union,  no  Government,  no  Country,’^  whereas, 
on  the  contrary,  we  had  just  such  an  Union  and 
Government  as  the  Constitution  gave  us  ; not 
only  the  best  ever  devised  by  the  wisdom  of  man, 
as  we  had  proved  for  seventy  years,  hut  lietter 
calculated  to  withstand  the  mutations  of  time 
than  any  which  had  preceded  it,  had  we  pos- 
sessed the  wit  to  comprehend,  and  the  virtue  to 
appreciate  the  princijiles  which  constituted  its 
strength  and  glory. 

We  hold  Secession  to  he  a political  right  by 
vii'tue  of  the  Sovereignty  ol‘  the  States,  and  shall 
show  that  they  have  never  divested  themselves 
ol’it;  and  liirtliermore,  while  they  maintain  iheir 


* U(;v.  (Janiiiu'r  Sinin",  1).  1). 


AN  EXPOSITION  OF  SECESSION. 


5 


political  organizations  as  States,  it  is  not  in  their 
power  to  alienate  the  right,  without  first  repudi- 
ating the  great  principle  established  by  the  Revo- 
lution of  1088,  which  placed  William  and  Mary 
on  the  throne  of  England,  to  wit : “ That  Sov- 
ereign power  resides  originally  in  the  people  of 
every  political  coinmunity,’’  in  contradistinction 
to  the  dogma  which  had  hitherto  prevailed,  and 
still  prevails  in  despotic  governments,  “ That  kings 
rule  by  divine  right,”  as  illustrated  by  the  King 
of  Prussia,  in  his  late  coronation  speech  at  Konigs- 
burgh,  who  said,  The  Kings  of  Prussia  receive 
their  crowns  from  God  ; I,  therefore,  place  this 
crown  upon  my  head.” 

If,  in  1787,  the  people  comprised  in  the  original 
thirteen  States  had  been  without  political  organ- 
ization, and  were  owing  allegiance  to  no  political 
power,  there  had  been  devised  for  them  a form  of 
government  based  on  a Constitution  like  that  of 
the  United  States,  including  the  reserved  as  well 
as  the  conferred  powers  of  that  Instrument,  and 
this  had  been  submitted  to  and  adopted  by  the 
people,  we  should  then  have  had  a consolidated 
government,  under  which  questions  of  ^Mleserved 
Powers,  State  Rights  and  Secession,”  would  never 
have  arisen.  But  such  was  not  the  condition  of 
the  people,  nor  such  the  government  adopted  by 
them.  Instead  of  a people  in  a state  of  nature, 
owing  allegiance  nowhere,  the  whole  population 
were  gathered  into  thirteen  distinct  communities, 
each  having  a separate  political  organization  under 


0 


AN  KXPOSri’ION  OF  SKOKSSION. 


M State  govei'niiuMitj  l)ase(l  on  a (Constitution  oi* 
rnndainental  Ijiw,  wliicli  elial longed  tli(‘  nn(|nali- 
(ied  alle^iaiu'e  ol’ t heii*  sndjeets,  and  each  acknow- 
ledi^ed  sov(‘i‘eign  and  independent  l)y  the  otliei's, 
and  were  so  acknowledged  and  i-eco^’nized  hy  the 
(‘ivilized  nations  of  the  world. 

dhiKATV  OF  lh<:A(’K  WITH  (lliFAT  HlUTAIN, 

Fauis.  Si- I’TKMincFi  •),  ITS”). 

Article  Fh'^f . His  Britannic  Majesty  a(*know- 
ledges  th(‘  said  United  States,  viz.:  New  llainp- 
shire,  Mass<ndinsetts,  Bhode  Island,  Connecticut, 
‘‘  Ncnv  Voik,  New  Jei’sey,  Pennsylvania,  Mary- 
hind,  Vii'oinia,  North  (Jarolina,  South  Carolina, 
and  (Jeoi*gia^  to  he  IVee,  sovereign,  and  independ- 
‘‘ent  States;  that  he  treats  with  them  as  such, 
“ and  lor  himselt,  his  heii’s  and  successors,  relin- 
“ (pushes  all  claims  to  the  government,  propriety, 
and  territ(3rial  rights  of  the  same,  and  every 
“ part  thereof.’’ 

The  Confedei'ate  Goveinment,  then  existing, 
had  never  been  (dothed  with  the  sovereign  powders 
ot  the  States,  as  Avill  appear  from  Marshall’s  Lite 
of  Washington,  Vol.  4,  page  414  : ‘‘  Thei’e  were 
several  ])ersons  at  that  time  in  (Congress  Avho 
“ pei’ceived  the  advantages  Avhich  would  result 
“ Iroin  liestowing  on  the  Federal  head  the  full 
pow(‘i*  of  iT‘gnlating  commerce,  and  conse- 
‘Upumlly  of  increasing  th(‘  imjiosts,  as  importa- 
“ tions  might  nmdi'r  ad visahh‘ ; hut  State  inlluence 


AN  EXPOSITION  OF  SECESSION. 


i 

predominated,  and  they  were  ov^er-ruled  by  great 
majorities.  Even  the  inadeijuate  plan  which 
they  did  recommend  was  never  adopted,  not- 
“ withstanding  tlie  greatness  of  the  exigency,  the 
pressure  of  the  national  want,  and  henelicial 
intluence  which  a certain  revenue  in  the  hands 
of  the  (tovernment  would  obviously  have  upon 
“ the  war ; yet  never,  during  the  existence  of 
“ the  Congress,  did  all  the  States  unite  to  vest  in 
“ Congress  tlie  powers  required,  so  iinwilliiig  are 
“ men  possessed  of  power,  to  place  it  in  the  hands 
“ of  others^  and  so  dilhcult  is  it  to  elfect  any  ob- 
‘yjects,  however  important,  which  are  dejiendent 
‘‘  on  the  concurrent  assent  of  many  distinct  Sov- 
ereignties*’’  The  nominal  powers  of  the  (h)v- 
ernnient  had  suthced,  and  barely  suthced  to  carry 
the  country  through  the  perils  and  exigencies  (■[' 
the  Revolution;  but  that  danger  past,  tlicw  were 
found  wholly  inade([uate  for  carrying  on  the  Cov- 
ernment  in  a time  of  peace.  Congress,  thus 
embarrassed,  adopted  a resolution  i ecomiuending 
a Convention  of  the  States,  to  consider  the  expe- 
diency of  conlerring  on  that  body  additional 
powers.  Twelve  States  I'cspomled  by  sending 
delegates  to  the  Convention,  which  met  in  Phila- 
delphia, in  May,  17ST,  and  organized  b\’  choosing 
Wasl  1 i n g t(  in , Pres i de n t . 

It  should  be  noticed,  that  tliis  was  not  a,  Con- 
vention of  the  Peo})le,  but  of  the  States  in  their 
Sovereign  capacity  ; each  State  having  tlie  same 
voice  and  vote  in  the  proceedings.  If  on  any 


8 


AN  EXPOSITION  OF  SECESSION. 


(jiiestion  tiiere  was  a tie  vote  in  the  State  delega- 
tion, the  vote  of  that  State  was  lost. 

Curtis’  History  of  the  Origin,  Formation,  jind 
Adoption  oi*  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  Vol.  2d,  page  28,  says: — “As  the  States 
“ had  eonterred  certain  powers  ii[)on  tlie  Conted- 
“ eration,  so  it  was  erpially  competent  to  them  to 
“ enlarge  and  add  to  those  powers.  ddiey'  Inid 
“ formed  State  governments,  and  had  established 
“ written  Constitutions.  But  the  peojile  of  the 
“States,  and  not  their  governments,  held  the 
“ supreme,  absolute  and  nncontrollable  ])ower. 
“ They  could  create,  and  they  could  niodity  or 
“destroy;  they  could  withdraw  the  power  con- 
“ ferred  upon  one  class  of  agents,  and  bestow 
“ them  upon  another  class.” 

We  do  not  propose  to  trace  the  proceedings  of 
the  (Jonvention  through  its  long  session.  The 
idea  of  conferring  additional  powers  on  the  Confed- 
eration, was  early  aliandoned,  and  in  lieu,  the  pro- 
ject of  a Federal  Covernment,  with  its  Executive, 
Legislative  and  Judiciary  Dcpai-tments,  was  ar- 
rived at  without  much  diversity  of  opinion. 

(Jnrtis,  Vol.  2d,  page  o8,  says  : “ From  that 
“ discussion  it  ap])ears  that  the  idea  was  already 
“ entertained  of  t'orming  a,  g()vernment  tlnit  should 
“ liav(‘  a,  vigoi’ous  authority  derived  directly  tVoni 
“ the  peoj)le  ol‘  the  States — one  that  should  j)os- 
“ sess  hotli  the  force  and  sense  ot‘  the  [leople  at 
“ liirge.  For  tlie  formation  of  such  a govern- 
“ immt,  one  of  two  courses  was  necessary;  either 


AN  EXPOSITION  OF  SECESSION. 


9 


to  abolish  the  State  governments  altogether,  or 
leave  them  in  existence,  and  to  regard  the  peo- 
pie  of  each  State  as  competent  to  withdraw 
from  their  local  governments  such  portions  of 
their  political  power  as  they  might  see  lit  to 
bestow  upon  a National  Government.  The  lat- 
ter  plan  was,  undoubtedly,  a novelty  in  political 
“ science,  for  no  system  of  government  had  yet 
been  constructed  in  which  the  individual  stood 
in  the  relation  of  subject  to  two  distinct  Sov- 
“ ereignties,  each  possessed  of  a distinct  sphere, 
‘‘  and  each  supreme  in  its  own  sjihere.  But  if  the 
“ American  doctrine  were  true,  that  all  supreme 
‘‘  power  resides  originally  in  the  people,  and  that 
all  governments  are  constituted  by  them  as  the 
“ agents  and  depositaries  of  tliat  power,  there 
could  be  no  incompatibility  in  such  a system. 
The  people  who  had  de])osited  with  a State 
government  the  sovereign  power  of  their  com- 
mimity  could  withdraw  it  at  their  pleasure  ; 

“ and  as  they  could  withdraw  the  whole,  they 
could  withdraw  a part  of  it.  It  a ])art  only 
were  withdrawn,  or  rathei',  if  the  supreme 
“ power  in  relation  to  particidai*  objects  were  to 
“ be  taken  from  the  State  governments  and  vested 
in  another  class  of  agents,  leaving  the  authority 
ot‘  the  former  undiminished,  except  as  to  those 
“ particular  objects,  the  individual  might  owe  a 
double  allegiance,  but  there  could  be  no  confu- 
‘‘  sion  in  his  duties,  provided  tlie  powers  Avith- 
drawn  and  revested  were  clearly  delined.’’ 


10 


AN  EXPOSITION  OF  SECESSION. 


The  Preamble  to  the  Constitution,  as  originally 
leported  by  the  Coininittee,  spoke  in  the  name  of 
the  people  of  the  separate  States^  as,  New  Hamp- 
shire, Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  &c.,  who  were 
said,  “ Do  ordain  and  establish  it,’’  &c.  In  this  form 
it  was  unanimously  adopted  by  the  Convention  on 
the  7th  of  August.  At  a subsequent  period,  after 
the  Seventh  Article”  had  been  agreed  upon  (it 
maybe  inferred),  under  which  the  Union  would  be 
formed,  on  the  Constitution  being  adopted  by  nine 
of  the  States,  it  was  perceived,  if  any  of  the  States 
did  not  adopt  it,  their  enumeration  in  the  Preamble 
would  be  an  incongruity,  to  remedy  which,  it  was 
referred  to  another  Committee  to  revise ; as  re- 
vised, it  was  adopted,  the  phraseology  having 
been  changed  to  ‘‘We,  the  people  of  the  United 
States,  do  ordain,”  &c.,  obviously,  not  for  the  pur- 
pose of  modifying  the  import  of  the  original  lan- 
guage, but  to  provide  for  a contingency  likely  to 
arise.  The  Preamble  is  often  quoted  as  if  a fund- 
amental article  of  the  Constitution — the  phrase, 
“ We,  the  people  of  the  United  States,  do  ordain,” 
&c.,  implying  its  adoption  by  the  whole  people, 
whereas,  the  Preamble  is  simply  an  introduction  to 
it,  enumerating  the  objects  for  which  it  was  estab- 
lished. The  people  of  the  United  States  at  large  had 
nothing  to  do  with  the  adoption  of  the  Constitu- 
tion ; they  would  have  had  everything  to  do,  had 
they  been  in  the  condition  indicated  in  a,  previous 
paragra])h.  Nor  had  the  people  of  one  State  any- 
thing to  do  with  its  adoption  in  another  State ; 


AN  EXPOSITION  OF  SECESSION. 


11 


for  the  obvious  reason,  that  neither  one  nor  the 
other  were  adequate  to  the  work.  It  could  be 
adopted  only  by  evoking  the  sovereign  power  of  the 
State,  which  power  only  was  competent  to  with- 
draw from  the  local  government  the  powers  which 
the  act  of  adoption  would  confer  on  the  Federal 
Government. 

In  the  Virginia  Convention  for  the  adoption  of 
the  Constitution,  Mr.  Madison  said: 

‘‘  The  parties  to  it  were  to  be  the  people, 

“ BUT  NOT  THE  PEOPLE  AS  COMPOSING  ONE  GREAT 
“ SOCIETY,  BUT  THE  PEOPLE  AS  COMPOSING  THIRTEEN 
“ SOVEREIGNTIES.  If  IT  WERE  PURELY  A CONSOLI- 
“ DATED  GOVERNMENT,  THE  ASSENT  OP  A MAJORITY 

OF  THE  PEOPLE  WOULD  BE  SUFFICIENT  TO  ESTAB- 

LISH  IT.” 

In  the  Massachusetts  Convention,  Mr.  Chief 
Justice  Dana  said  : 

If  the  Constitution  under  consideration 

“ WAS  IN  FACT  WHAT  ITS  OPPOSERS  HAD  OFTEN  CALLED 
“ IT,  A CONSOLIDATION  OF  THE  StATES,  HE  SHOULD 
“ READILY  AGREE  THAT  THE  REPRESENTATION  OF  THE 
“ PEOPLE  WAS  TOO  SMALL  ; BUT  THIS  WAS  A CHARGE 
‘‘  WITHOUT  FOUNDATION.  So  FAR  FROM  IT,  IT  IS  AP- 
“ PARENT  TO  EVERY  ONE,  THAT  THE  FeDERAL  GoVERN- 
“ MENT  SPRINGS  OUT  OF,  AND  CAN  ALONE  BE  BROUGHT 
“ INTO  EXISTENCE  BY  THE  StATE  GOVERNMENTS  ! DE- 
“ MOLISH  THE  LATTER  AND  THERE  IS  AN  END  OP  THE 
“ FORMER.” 

If  the  Convention  had  selected  the  first  of  the 
two  courses  indicated  in  the  quotation  given,  as 


12 


AN  EXPOSITION  OF  SECESSION. 


necessary  to  the  forination  of’ a ^overnnient  pos- 
“ sessing  a vio’oroiis  aiitlioi-itv  derived  directly 
from  the  peo])le,”  had  incorporated  an  arti(;le  in 
the  ])roposed  Constitution  to  aliolish  the  State 
i.^overiiments,  obliterate  their  geo^ra])hical  bounds 
and  resolve  their  ])olitical  organizationi  i > el(‘- 
mentary  principles,  whereby  the  whole  population 
would  be  blended  in  one  great  coinmunity,  instead 
of  thirteen  ; its  adoption  Avould  luive  given  us, 
what  so  many  erroneously  assert  we  now  have, 
a consolidated  government.  We  hazard  nothing 
in  aiHrming,  that  a Constitution  witli  such  pi-ovi- 
sions,  would  have  been  rejected  by  every  State  in 
the  Confederacy.  In  reading  the  debates  in  the 
Conventions  of  Virginia  and  Massachusetts,  we 
cannot  fail  to  perceive  the  Constitution  would  not 
have  been  adopted  by  either  of  those  States,  but 
for  the  distinct  recognition  of  their  sovereignty, 
by  the  eminent  men  we  have  quoted.  There  is 

NO  HIGHER  MANIFESTATION  OF  SOVEREIGNTY  THAN  IN 
REPOSING  ONE  GOVERNMENT,  AND  CONFERRING  ITS 
POWERS  UPON  ANOTHER  ! HENCE  THE  ADOPTION  OF 

THE  Constitution,  by  the  people  of  each  sep- 
arate State,  was  itself,  an  act  of  the  highest 

SOVEREIGNTY. 

11  aving  framed  the  Constitution,  it  was  resolv- 
ed tliat  it  be  submitted  to  a Convention  of  dele- 
gates of  each  State,  chosen  by  the  people  thereof, 
under  the  recommendation  of  the  Legislature,  for 
their  assent  and  adoption.  In  due  time,  though 
at  ditfereut  periods,  such  Conventions  were  held 


AN  EXPOSITION  OF  SECESSION. 


18 


in  all  the  States,  each  representing  the  sovereign 
power  of  its  own  State,  to  which  was  coinmitted 
the  responsible  duty  of  adopting  or  rejecting  the 
proposed  Constitution.  In  the  discharge  of  the 
high  trust  devolved  on  it,  and  the  exercise  of  its 
supreme  power,  eacli  Convention  did,  hy  solemn 
vote,  adopt  the  C(  nstituticn  of  the  United  States 
of  America,  and  thereby  did  divest  its  own  State 
government  of  such  portion  of  its  sovereign  pow- 
ers as  were,  by  this  act  of  adoption,  conferred  on 
the  Federal  Government,  which,  under  the  Con- 
stitution, would  lie  clothed  with  paramount  au- 
thority over  all  matters  to  which  those  powers 
appertain,  and  to  that  extent  would  also  chal- 
lenge the  unqualitied  allegiance  of  the  subjects  of 
that  St{\te  ; not  for  the  reason  it  represented 
sovereign  powers  of  all  the  States,  but  that  it 
represented  those  of  that  particular  State  : whose 
sovereignty  only,  Avherever  deposited,  and  how- 
ever associated  with  others  it  might  be,  could 
rightfully  claim  the  allegiance  of  its  subjects 
Thus,  by  the  sovereign  act  of  each  separate  State 
was  the  Federal  Government  ushered  into  being 
— the  creature  of  the  Stiites  ; born  of  their  sove- 
reign will,  and  not  of  the  will  of  the  people,  only, 
as  that  was  expressed  through  organs  representing 
the  sovereignty  of  their  respective  political  organ- 
izations. The  Federal  Government  had  no  self- 
creating,  nor  has  it  any  constitutional  self-sus- 
taining, power.  It  was,  and  is,  dependent  on  the 
States  for  both. 


14 


AN  EXPOBITTON  OF  SECEBBTON. 


That  soverch^n  ])()\voi-  resides  origiiiall^^  in  the 
])eoj)le,  is  an  admitted  dogma.  It  does  so  by  nat- 
mal  and  inlierent  i-iglit;  and  governments  ;ire  con- 
stituted by  them  as  the  agents  and  de])ositaries  of 
tliat  power.  Tlie  stream  cannot  rise  above  its 
source,  nor  can  a j)i-incipal,  supreme  or  subordin- 
ate, delegate  power  superior  to  its  own,  and  which 
may  not  be  revoked  at  pleasure.  As  the  people 
of  each  State  had  clothed  their  local  government 
with  supreme  powei',  as  theii*  agent,  had,  in  the 
exercise  of  their  sovereignty,  withdrawn  a portion 
ol*  such  })owers,  and  had  conferred  them  on  tlie 
Federal  Government,  as  their  agent  also,  and  as 
the  latter  possessed  no  ])owers  under  the  Constitu- 
tion, but  such  as  were  so  conferred,  so,  also,  is  it 
the  prerogative  of  each  State  to  withdraw  from 
the  Federal  Government  the  powers  conferred, 
whenever,  in  the  exercise  of  its  sovereign  will,  it 
so  elects  to  do ; and  thus  is  demonstrated  the  right 
ot  Secession  ; the  practical  demonstration  of  which, 
through  the  appropriate  action  of  the  sovereign 
power,  evoked  for  that  special  object,  takes  the 
State  without  the  pale  of  the  Union,  revests  her 
local  government  with  her  original  poAvers,  where- 
by she  is  a sovereign,  and  to  the  United  States  an 
elien  ])ower  ; as  such,  she  extends  her  supreme 
juitliority  over  all  places  within  her  territorial 
limits,  and  claims  the  undivided  allegiance  of  her 
subjeads,  who  ai  e no  longer  under,  or  amenable  to 
Ibe  laws  ol‘  the  Union.  The  Southern  Confede- 
I'acy  is  as  trul\'  an  alien  power  to  the  United  States 


AN  EXPOSITION  OF  SECESSION. 


15 


as  Spain  or  Mexico.  If  they  wage  war  with  her, 
it  must  be  as  against  aliens,  and  not  rebels;  and  if 
thej'  would  not  forfeit  tlie  character  of  a civilized 
people,  they  must,  in  prosecuting  the  war,  observe 
the  comities  of  civilized  warfare. 

The  Constitution  is  reticent  on  the  term  of  the 
Union,  and  manner  of  withdraAving  from  it.  It 
was  needless  to  fix  the  duration  of  the  one,  or 
prescribe  the  mode  of  the  other,  for  the  reason 
that  the  parties  to  it  were  sovereign  poAvers,  and 
as  such  controlled  by  no  bond  other  than  their 
own  Avill.  Some  men  speak  and  Avrite  as  if  the 
Federal  Government  itself  Avas  the  soA^ereign 
poAver ; Avhereas  it  is  simply  the  representative 
and  agent  of  that  poAver.  The  sovereign  poAver 
resides  in  the  people,  an  imprescriptible  right, 
Avhich  cannot  be  lost  by  non-nse,  nor  tahen  from 
them  by  force  Despotic  poAver  may  restrain  the 
free  exercise  of  it,  as  it  does  at  this  time  in 
Poland  and  in  the  Venetian  States,  and  as  it  may 
do  in  the  Southern  Confederacy,  should  it  1)e  sub- 
jugated b}^  the  North  ; but  it  still  exists,  ready  - 
for  action,  vAdienever  the  restraint  is  remoA^ed.  It 
is  also  inalienable — the  people  cannot  alienate  it 
from  themseh^es,  nor  place  it  beyond  their  poAver 
of  control.  Had  it  been  possible  for  a State  (k)n- 
vention  which  adopted  the  Constitution  in  1787, 
to  bind  the  people  of  that  generation,  beyond  the 
poAver  of  a subsecpient  Convention  of  the  same 
generation  to  annul,  it  could  not  bind  the  genera- 
tions of  another  period  and  age.  The  Federal 


AN  EXPOSITION  OF  SECESSION. 


u; 

Goveriiiiieiit  liad  no  (constitutional  powei's,  l)iit 
sucli  as  were  conlei'i’ed  on  it  by  tlje  States,  and 
these  restricted  to  sucli  only  as  are  clearly  and 
ex])ressly  delined  ])y  the  Constitution.  d\)  lac- 
s train  a State  from  withdrawing  from  the  Union, 
is  not  one  of  the  conferj’ed  powers  : to  compel  her 
return  hy  military  force,  after  she  has  withdraw]?, 
is  an  assumj)tion  of  power  unsanctioned  ))y  the 
(Jonstitution.  Hence  the  folly  and  in  justice  of  at- 
tempting to  coerce  the  seceded  States  into  an 
union  Avhich,  as  regards  them,  no  longer  exists, 
and  cannot  re-exist  until  they  can  he  induced, 
thi'ough  another  series  of  conventions,  oi’ganized 
tor  that  special  object,  to  readopt  the  Constitution. 
Finally  : Ttie  Union  was  founded  on  the  great 

PRiNCIPLES  OF  MUTUAL  PROTECTl ON,  MUTUAL  INTEREST, 
AND  EaUAL  RIGHTS,  IN  WHATEVER  CONCERNS  OUR  PER- 
SONS, PRIVILEGES,  AND  PROPERTY.  ThE  LEAST  DIS- 
CRIxMINATION  IN  THE  CONSTITUTION  IN  FAVOR  OF,  OR 
AGAINST  THE  ENJOYMENT  AND  PROTECTION  OF  ANY  ONE 
OF  THESE,  IN  A TERRITORY  COMIVION  TO  ALL,  WOULD 
HAVE  BEEN  FATAL  TO  ITS  ADOPTION,  AS  HAS  THE  DE- 
('LARED  PURPOSE  OF  A DOMINANT  SECTIONAL  PARTY, 
TO  FORCE  SUCH  DISCRIMINATION,  BEEN  THE  DISRUPTION 

OF  1TIE  Union.  kSo  long  as  the  principles  on 

WHICH  IT  WAS  FOUNDED  SHOULD  HAVE  BEEN  MAIN- 
'lAlNED  INVIOLATE,  SO  LONG,  BY  FAIR  IMPLICATION, 

WOULD  'I’HE  Union  have  been  perpetuated. 


New  York,  Dec.  18G1. 


Gaylord  Bros. 
Makers 

Syracuse,  N.  Y. 
PAT.  JAN.  21, 1908 


